Sims2 & 3 How Large Is Your: Downloads Folder

[leefish]

(09-04-2012 06:05 PM)Twi Wrote:  ......it was an absurd amount and little to no bodyshop content.

Indeed, a total plants queen IIRC. Good job there is a real problem with proper CC trees and bushes in TS3 or your folder would be bursting again.

[Twi]

Haha Lee, so true! Though the plants in TS3 are generally better than the plants in TS2 so MAYBE I wouldn't need as much cc...

[rawmilk905]

(09-04-2012 01:08 AM)leefish Wrote:  Its a good point - I rarely compress my files, but then I mainly use repo objects with no textures in them.

I suppose it is all where do you want to maximise? If you don't have a lot of RAM but DO have a lot of HD space then don't compress - is that the idea?

I didn't quite intend to suggest that. My point was that the level of compression probably makes no impact on game performance. I'd recommend anyone compress, especially for uploads because of bandwidth considerations. The impact of CC on game performance would be determined mainly by how much RAM it occupies when loaded, regardless of how much room it takes up on your hard drive, so leaving files less compressed (.package files are a compressed format, the Compressorizer just uses better compression) would likely offer no benefit other than maybe a slightly faster load time starting the game, and I have my doubts as to whether that is even the case. In other words, the same amount of content would have the same amount of impact on performance whether the compressed files on the hard drive are smaller or larger, because the loaded, uncompressed files will take up the same amount of RAM. Defragmenting can make a significant difference in how fast files load. If you alter files often, which any CC creator likely does, and have issue with your load time, I would first recommend a defrag of your hard drive. If your issue is with performance, you may just have to give up some CC, or make some of it default replacement and/or repository if possible. At least, this would be my understanding.

[rawmilk905]

(07-04-2012 01:45 AM)BoilingOil Wrote:  That's more files and more folders than you, Shane, but a way smaller total size. Most of the CC in my game has been compressorized, though. That might also make a big difference.

OK, I see that you were discussing number of files vs size of folder. Somewhere I invented the topic of game performance, which was never even being discussed.

[rawmilk905]

I was wrong on the matter of load time. It looks like some people on the MATY thread found compression actually shortened their load time.

[BoilingOil]

Which is what I also said, earlier in this thread. Load time improves significantly, because less data is required to be transferred from the slow medium that a hard-drive actually is. This gain is way greater than the time lost while uncompressing the data in memory.

[rawmilk905]

I see. Thanks for clarifying why that is. I understand it now. It puzzled me initially. I was attributing load time to just the loading of data, overlooking the reading.

[celebkiriedhel]

As I remember....

There are lot of holes in the original packages, and it actually takes memory to process them. What compressorizor does is remove the holes so the data isn't all over the place. In some ways it's like defragging your memory. It makes all the pointers contiguous, so each chunk of data tends to be next to each other. Hence less load time, because it has less processing to do.

From what I understand, the game doesn't uncompress the data.

And I could be completely wrong here - but that's what it looked like to me when it was being developed.